Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Zen Democrat

(5,901 posts)

19. No. He was required to sign it.

Reply to katmondoo (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:56 PM

Mar 2013

The law, passed by Congress on January 2, says that "on March 1, 2013, the president shall order a sequestration for fiscal year 2013." He waited until the end of the day to sign the order.

In August 2011, congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 requiring the sequester order to be signed on January 2, 2013, if congress had not passed a bill with individually-named cuts totaling $1.5 trillion dollars by December 31, 2012. In the “fiscal cliff” deal, the deadline was moved to February 28, 2013. Congress failed to pass individually-named cuts by either deadline.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/03/1191324/-Plain-English-primer-on-sequestration#

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why did Obama sign the Sequestration bill [View all] katmondoo Mar 2013 OP

So the 2014 house could get to the other side of the street of course. graham4anything Mar 2013 #1

No. A deal was cut with the Republicans OKNancy Mar 2013 #2

+1. A better question is why won't the Repubs be serious about the Country's economic future? FSogol Mar 2013 #4

American politicians, as a generality, prefer to rule over the rubble, rather than give up power. bemildred Mar 2013 #10

He could have but Drale Mar 2013 #3

It was an artificial crisis created to stave off an even worse artificial crisis. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #5

No. It was not veto abled. lunatica Mar 2013 #6

yes, he could have vetoed it. and he could have gone to the people to make his case. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #7

Because the people would be so happy to listen when the country had defaulted jeff47 Mar 2013 #11

Had he vetoed it, the U.S. would have been in default riqster Mar 2013 #8

Because he thought it would provide incentive for negotiations. What he still doesn't realize is still_one Mar 2013 #9

They should at least like the white side of Obama thecrow Mar 2013 #14

Yes they will be left behind still_one Mar 2013 #17

the naive Obama theory Enrique Mar 2013 #24

I never meant he was naive. His personality is such that he assumes the best in people still_one Mar 2013 #27

Because it wasn't a stand-alone issue. He had to sign it to get the debt ceiling raised. jeff47 Mar 2013 #12

Thanks to all for helping me understand this katmondoo Mar 2013 #13

Did not have to sign it... onpatrol98 Mar 2013 #15

"it was the White House's idea and Congress went willingly along" bills dont go from the potus leftyohiolib Mar 2013 #18

Actually, it required votes from both parties to pass the bill onenote Mar 2013 #21

thanks for the clarification leftyohiolib Mar 2013 #23

Because it's the 3rd Way of doing things. The "Not as bad" way of selling out. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #16

No. He was required to sign it. Zen Democrat Mar 2013 #19

Because the scams "fiscal cliff", "sequestration", "debt ceiling" all have the same thing in common: Fire Walk With Me Mar 2013 #20

I just hate posts like this. Way too much reality. joeunderdog Mar 2013 #25

+1 It is. It's like waking up to a nightmare, isn't it, woo me with science Mar 2013 #28

The evil Republicans forced him to do it. 99Forever Mar 2013 #22

The idea was that such wide-reaching cuts would be reprehensible to Dems and Pugs alike. TroglodyteScholar Mar 2013 #26